Move is to comply with state law passed by Governor Ron DeSantis that prohibits public funding of DEI programs

Archived version: https://archive.ph/2NkY3

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    You wouldn’t let me into the olympics on the basis of the fact that I wasn’t a runner for 99% of my life

    Of course not, but we’re more likely to put you on a Wheaties box over someone with similar results because you’ve overcome more adversity. It was more difficult for you. You achieved more.

    We also might be more likely to start up a running program in your town, because clearly we’re missing out on great runners, who were never able to succeed because they were never able to get off the starting block.

    • Maalus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yes, and starting a new program, investing in poorer schools is fine. What doesn’t need to happen, is someone going over the map, circling predominately black neighborhoods, investing in just schools there, and adding points to applications of black people.

      Simply don’t look at factors like race, gender to determine who can go into a university or not. Look at skills, look at a person that comes in now. I mentioned in a different thread Finland, where they need Swedish speaking doctors and lawyers. So they prioritize those people. The choice is based on an additional skills that are required to the betterment of society. They gain more points for something more that they can do that’s needed.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        So, that’s the actual problem. If you don’t look at factors like wealth, race, primary language or gender, you can congratulate yourself in your process not being biased, but you will see biased results. Like it or not, people start in different places and face different obstacles, and the goal is to try to adjust for these so the results will be merit based or at least fair, and not racist or sexist.

        If we’re playing baseball and I start off third base and score, is that the same merit as you getting up to bat, getting on base, working your way around the bases, and also scoring? Any coach would judge you to have shown higher merit despite our scores being the same

        • Maalus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Your example doesn’t make sense. Being a specific race doesn’t make you better at science, or in your example doesn’t make the guy be 3 bases behind. This is just discrimination mixed with wishful thinking i.e. “if this guy would have lived with millionaire parents he would’ve scored higher” you don’t know that, nobody knows. So your example is completely inverted, where a kid from a wealthy family starts at the start and has to work hard, and the kid that had a poor family starts 3 bases ahead. Except now it is based on subjective reasoning and imaginary scenarios of “what if”.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Being a specific race doesn’t make you better at science

            Exactly, so why are the results so lopsided? Being brought up in an environment where you had less education opportunities for whatever reason, less opportunity to show your worth, can make you appear worse at science, when if you had the same opportunity, you might show our were as good or better. Why should we settle for good scientists being left behind by the circumstances of their birth or upbringing. If they’re good, they’re good.

            Ok, fine, maybe a better example is:

            • I start at third base and run home for a score
            • you start at bat, get on base, work your way around the bases to third …. Then the inning is over as I strike out

            You didn’t score, so should you be cut from the team? I scored and helped the team win, so do I deserve more credit? I didn’t show whether I could bat, get on base, or work my way around the bases. Am I better because I scored, or are you better because you showed more merit at more things, overcame a more difficult challenge, show a better likelihood of more contribution to the team over the season? The coach should consider all the facts before deciding who to cut, not just the score of one game

            discrimination mixed with wishful thinking

            None of this is meant to give anyone a free ride, only an adjustment and only where appropriate

            I recently had this conversation with my brother where he voiced a similar opinion to you.

            • At his company they made a big push for more women in engineering and management and disregarded merit. The result was unqualified people, lost confidence in corporate leadership, and more ingrained biases. No one wants that
            • At the last several companies I work for, they also recognize a need for more women in engineering and management. They recruit more strongly from nontraditional sources, encourage stronger networking in women in leadership, put more effort into fighting discrimination throughout the company, and have given themselves more opportunities to hire and promote more women. I followed my manager to a new job because she is outstanding. She had the opportunity to show her merit despite the fact that she was born in another country, didn’t speak the same language, is “the wrong gender”, and didn’t even have the same economic system
            • Maalus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              In the end, what should matter is skills of a specific person and recruiting based on getting the best of the best. Otherwise it is lacking objectivity. Your brother’s example comes to mind - would the situation be better if they didn’t push unqualified people based on a less represented gender?

              Overall what I am saying is this. You can take action, or you can decide not to. Taking action and it resulting in incredible bias, misogyny, misandry, racism is in the end worse, than if someone hadn’t prefferred employees / students based on the characteristics that make those things appear. Not having special programs based on background means it’s everyone for themselves, and the best candidate is selected. It seems extremely hard to have a perfect program that changes the hiring / enrolling students process. Otherwise I see two sides of the same coin - a company not hiring a 25yo woman, since she’s part of the demographic most likely to have maternity leave, and a company doing the exact opposite and hiring women because they are underrepresented in the field.

              Please explain to be the need to have women in engineering / leadership. What’s a difference between a woman that knows CAD, went to study engineering / mechanics, etc, and a man that knows CAD, went to study engineering / mechanics etc. I see none. I wouldn’t hire someone because of their sex, had everything been equal (which we all know never are). If a woman has great work ethics and has the knowledge / expertise I need, I hire a woman. If a man has the knowledge / expertise I need and great work ethics, I hire a man. It doesn’t matter what sex they are, what they like to do in their own time, how they dress (maybe only when it’d be a customer facing job). What matters is how good of a worker they’ll be.

              • AA5B@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Starting with the assumption that women are equally capable of succeeding at engineering jobs, we should generally expect similar numbers of successful women engineers as men, but there aren’t.

                That means we are missing out on a huge pool of potentially successful engineers and they are missing out on some well paying jobs. Why should we settle for choosing new candidates mostly from half the population? Think of all the excellent engineers we missed out on!

                If a woman has great work ethics and has the knowledge / expertise I need, I hire a woman

                Yet you’re willing to miss out on that person with great work ethic and the skills you need if they’re discouraged by discrimination, harassment, societal expectations?